Mississippi down to one abortion clinic

[Texashiker]

I would argue that a fetus is not a legal person, nor is it a person from a moral sense.

Are you familiar with "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies" by Bartolomé de las Casas?

It is a book, free copies can be found online, documenting the slaughter of the native people by Spanish explorers.

The natives were not "legal people" by spanish law. They were not protected by any international laws, or any spanish laws.

Did that lack of legal protection justify slaughtering tens of thousands of natives?

A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies is a short book, you should be able to read it in a day. You should feel proud of how people with no legal protection were slaughtered.

 

[blake0812]

Are you familiar with "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies" by Bartolomé de las Casas?

It is a book, free copies can be found online, documenting the slaughter of the native people by Spanish explorers.

The natives were not "legal people" by spanish law. They were not protected by any international laws, or any spanish laws.

Did that lack of legal protection justify slaughtering tens of thousands of natives?

Yes, but they were full grown adults, fetus are just a cluster a cells that popped up from an egg.

 

[Texashiker]

Yes, but they were full grown adults, fetus are just a cluster a cells that popped up from an egg.

And?

Those people were just savages.

You can not excuse killing an innocent person with a "because".

 

[fskimospy]

Are you familiar with "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies" by Bartolomé de las Casas?

It is a book, free copies can be found online, documenting the slaughter of the native people by Spanish explorers.

The natives were not "legal people" by spanish law. They were not protected by any international laws, or any spanish laws.

Did that lack of legal protection justify slaughtering tens of thousands of natives?

A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies is a short book, you should be able to read it in a day. You should feel proud of how people with no legal protection were slaughtered.

This is so illogical as to be hard to wrap my head around. The Spanish slaughtering people in the past has literally zero bearing as to whether or not an embryo or a fetus is a person in a legal or moral sense.

A fetus or an embryo is not the legal or moral equivalent of a human being and everyone knows it. The simple thought experiment of a baby and a tray of embryos in a burning fertility clinic that I have used before has illustrated that pretty conclusively.

 

[nehalem256]

This is so illogical as to be hard to wrap my head around. The Spanish slaughtering people in the past has literally zero bearing as to whether or not an embryo or a fetus is a person in a legal or moral sense.

A fetus or an embryo is not the legal or moral equivalent of a human being and everyone knows it. The simple thought experiment of a baby and a tray of embryos in a burning fertility clinic that I have used before has illustrated that pretty conclusively.

So I assume you also support ending WIC for pregnant women. Since as you have stated in the past welfare is for the child not the woman.

If you would let a million embryos die in a fire how can you justify spending millions of tax dollars supporting embryos?

 

[blake0812]

And?

Those people were just savages.

You can not excuse killing an innocent person with a "because".

I wasn't excusing it, you were comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Texashiker]

This is so illogical as to be hard to wrap my head around. The Spanish slaughtering people in the past has literally zero bearing as to whether or not an embryo or a fetus is a person in a legal or moral sense.

Past slaughters of innocent people have an absolute bearing on the abortion issue.

Just because something is legal does not make it morally right.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/20321/pg20321.html

A Spaniard Hunting and intent on his game, phancyed that his Beagles wanted food; and to supply their hunger snatcht a young little Babe from the Mothers breast, cutting off his Arms and Legs, cast a part of them to every Dog, which they having devour'd, he threw the remainder of the Body to them.

Because there was no law protecting those people what the Spaniards did was acceptable?

Legality is no shield for morally corrupt behavior.

 

[nehalem256]

Past slaughters of innocent people have an absolute bearing on the abortion issue.

Just because something is legal does not make it morally right.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/20321/pg20321.html

A Spaniard Hunting and intent on his game, phancyed that his Beagles wanted food; and to supply their hunger snatcht a young little Babe from the Mothers breast, cutting off his Arms and Legs, cast a part of them to every Dog, which they having devour'd, he threw the remainder of the Body to them.

Because there was no law protecting those people what the Spaniards did was acceptable?

Legality is no shield for morally corrupt behavior.

Bad example.

A young little babe does not sound like a "fully grown person" to me. So therefore in eskimospyland such a thing would be acceptable

 

[fskimospy]

Past slaughters of innocent people have an absolute bearing on the abortion issue.

Just because something is legal does not make it morally right.

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/20321/pg20321.html

Because there was no law protecting those people what the Spaniards did was acceptable?

Legality is no shield for morally corrupt behavior.

Irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that abortion is moral because it is legal.

 

[Texashiker]

Irrelevant. Nobody is arguing that abortion is moral because it is legal.

Ok, we are making some progress.

Legality aside, what possible reason could people such as yourself have to support slaughtering the innocent?

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, we are making some progress.

Legality aside, what possible reason could people such as yourself have to support slaughtering the innocent?

Logical fallacy of begging the question.

Fetuses and embryos aren't people, so there is no 'slaughter of the innocent' taking place.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

In other words you do not want to take responsibility for your actions.

Drinking and driving for recreational purposes with an unintended consequence due to an accident should not lead to such a forced heavily burdened outcome.

Smoking crack for recreational purposes with an unintended consequence due to an accident should not lead to such a forced heavily burdened outcome.

Skydiving for recreational purposes with an unintended consequence due to an accident should not lead to such a forced heavily burdened outcome....

More false equivalencies; a skydiving accident is not reversible. An unwanted pregnancy is.

Choosing to have an abortion is taking responsibility for your actions.

Being forced to have a baby is not.

Yea,,,, tell that to the judge when he orders you to pay 20% of your income + provide health insurance.

But judge, it was an accident and I should not be burdened because of said accident.

Judge will probably look at you and say something like, "next time be more responsible."

So I take it that you are also against mandatory child support for men...

These 2 comments highlight what I think is at the core of these complaints. Men have no input on the final outcome of an accidental pregnancy.

A woman can have an abortion, a man can refuse to have sex. Tough crap.

 

[Texashiker]

Logical fallacy of begging the question.

Fetuses and embryos aren't people, so there is no 'slaughter of the innocent' taking place.

As I have said before, people like you are not happy unless there is a group to oppress, sterilize or just flat out kill.

When it became clear forced sterilization was on the way out, you had to come up with something else, so the perfect crime was pushed to the forefront. That perfect crime is abortion.

The victim has no rights, nor does the victim have protection under the law.

This is no different than slavery and the slaughter of various native tribes.

Abortion proponents are the same ones who would have justified killing black slaves, sterilizing people deemed unfit, detainment of Japanese-Americans and the outright slaughter of natives.

What kind of despicable person justifies killing an unborn child.

A woman can have an abortion, a man can refuse to have sex. Tough crap.

Those are two different standards.

Women can refuse to have sex also. She chose to have unprotected sex, now deal with the consequences.

 

[nehalem256]

These 2 comments highlight what I think is at the core of these complaints. Men have no input on the final outcome of an accidental pregnancy.

A woman can have an abortion, a man can refuse to have sex. Tough crap.

So you are in favor of inequality.

Thank you for at least being honest with your bigotry.

 

[fskimospy]

As I have said before, people like you are not happy unless there is a group to oppress, sterilize or just flat out kill.

When it became clear forced sterilization was on the way out, you had to come up with something else, so the perfect crime was pushed to the forefront. That perfect crime is abortion.

The victim has no rights, nor does the victim have protection under the law.

This is no different than slavery and the slaughter of various native tribes.

Abortion proponents are the same ones who would have justified killing black slaves, sterilizing people deemed unfit, detainment of Japanese-Americans and the outright slaughter of natives.

What kind of despicable person justifies killing an unborn child.

Continued logical fallacies. Continuing to beg the question.

EDIT: Also, I appreciate how you're resorting to personal attacks despite your constant whining about people attacking you.

 

[Texashiker]

EDIT: Also, I appreciate how you're resorting to personal attacks despite your constant whining about people attacking you.

The writing is on the wall. People such as yourself have nothing to stand on except your own moral corruption.

Killing unborn babies is no different than killing slaves, Native Americans,,,, or any other group you deem unfit and unworthy.

That is not a personal attack, that is a fact. A fact backed up by over 500 years of documented history.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Killing unborn babies is no different than killing slaves, Native Americans,,,, or any other group you deem unfit and unworthy.

You can't even begin to compare abortion to race-based genocide unless you're arguing from the standpoint that people who want to keep abortion legal are doing so with the desire to see ALL fetuses aborted. That would be an idiotic thing to say, so I'm going to guess you're not making that argument, but that means your comparisons are ludicrous.

 

[artvscommerce]

The writing is on the wall. People such as yourself have nothing to stand on except your own moral corruption.

Killing unborn babies is no different than killing slaves, Native Americans,,,, or any other group you deem unfit and unworthy.

That is not a personal attack, that is a fact. A fact backed up by over 500 years of documented history.

If this is a fact, where is your evidence? Where is your evidence that these things are equivalent?

Why isn't masterbation equivalent to the things you mentioned as well? It's killing potential life... Your mentality on this topic is truly astounding.

 

[Daverino]

That would be an idiotic thing to say, so I'm going to guess you're not making that argument

I wouldn't make that assumption with this crowd.

 

[shira]

See the problem with your logic. Pro-lifers don't say tat a fetus is a "potential" life; they say it is life.

The problem with your logic is that pro-lifers confuse being a human life with being a person.

All sorts of human tissue is "alive" without being a person, and I doubt very much that pro-lifers have any problem with - for example - a blood blank discarding a unit of expired blood, even though this action will cause the blood cells to die. At some point, we'll be able to clone non-fetal-stem-cell-based brain tissue as treatment for Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and other neurological conditions; I doubt very much that any but the most ultra-extreme pro-lifers will argue that this tissue is a person.

In the same way, a pre-viability human fetus is a collection of living human tissue, but that doesn't make it a person.

 

[fskimospy]

The writing is on the wall. People such as yourself have nothing to stand on except your own moral corruption.

Killing unborn babies is no different than killing slaves, Native Americans,,,, or any other group you deem unfit and unworthy.

That is not a personal attack, that is a fact. A fact backed up by over 500 years of documented history.

Today I learned that "facts" are random thoughts that Texashiker has that aren't backed up by any evidence.

At this point you've just devolved into nonsensical babbling.

 

[nehalem256]

Why isn't masterbation equivalent to the things you mentioned as well? It's killing potential life... Your mentality on this topic is truly astounding.

The issue is that pro-lifers don't consider a fetus to be potential life.

The problem with your logic is that pro-lifers confuse being a human life with being a person.

In the same way, a pre-viability human fetus is a collection of living human tissue, but that doesn't make it a person.[/QUOTE]

They don't confuse it, they simply disagree with you at what point a fetus become a person.

All sorts of human tissue is "alive" without being a person, and I doubt very much that pro-lifers have any problem with - for example - a blood blank discarding a unit of expired blood, even though this action will cause the blood cells to die. At some point, we'll be able to clone non-fetal-stem-cell-based brain tissue as treatment for Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and other neurological conditions; I doubt very much that any but the most ultra-extreme pro-lifers will argue that this tissue is a person.

The difference is that the unit of blood is not a distinct creature. A fetus clearly is a distinct creature. The question is whether that creature counts as a person or not.

 

[Texashiker]

You can't even begin to compare abortion to race-based genocide unless you're arguing from the standpoint that people who want to keep abortion legal are doing so with the desire to see ALL fetuses aborted. That would be an idiotic thing to say, so I'm going to guess you're not making that argument, but that means your comparisons are ludicrous.

Didn't someone post a stat in this thread saying blacks were 5 times more likely to have an abortion that whites?

Is it ludicrous and idiotic to say abortion providers target low income areas, especially areas populated by minorities?

Part of the abortion debate is race based population control. Maybe not flat out genocide, but definitely population control. Its not like planned parenthood is going to setup shop in an upper class white neighborhood.

If a certain demographic was 5 times more likely to catch chicken pox or measles, the CDC would be freaking out.

But when it comes to abortions and low income minorities, nobody cares.

 

[nehalem256]

Didn't someone post a stat in this thread saying blacks were 5 times more likely to have an abortion that whites?

Is it ludicrous and idiotic to say abortion providers target low income areas, especially areas populated by minorities?

Part of the abortion debate is race based population control. Maybe not flat out genocide, but definitely population control. Its not like planned parenthood is going to setup shop in an upper class white neighborhood.

Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group.[1] What constitutes enough of a "part" to qualify as genocide has been subject to much debate by legal scholars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Complete destruction of a group is not necessary for it to be considered genocide.

 

[alzan]

As I have said before, people like you are not happy unless there is a group to oppress, sterilize or just flat out kill.

When it became clear forced sterilization was on the way out, you had to come up with something else, so the perfect crime was pushed to the forefront. That perfect crime is abortion.

The victim has no rights, nor does the victim have protection under the law.

This is no different than slavery and the slaughter of various native tribes.

Abortion proponents are the same ones who would have justified killing black slaves, sterilizing people deemed unfit, detainment of Japanese-Americans and the outright slaughter of natives.

What kind of despicable person justifies killing an unborn child.




Those are two different standards.

Women can refuse to have sex also. She chose to have unprotected sex, now deal with the consequences.

Correction: Men and women choose to have unprotected sex.